|
Changing the definition of marriage isn't civil disobedience, like i said, i was addressing your second point, the one where you claim that civil disobedience makes everybody more likely to break the law.
As it stands, i don't want the definition of marriage changed, i want people like you to realize that your definition of marriage lacks a much needed link with the reality of the history of the word marriage. You use a defintion of marriage that allows you to exclude others from something for reasons that i have yet to hear rationally expressed. To you marriage is hetero and monogamous and fruitful, whereas historically, marriage has been defined as a multitude of different relationships. For you to claim that your way is the only way is laughable and lacking in honesty.
Maybe you can finally give me an answer: Why is it that the people who favor the denial of gay marriage rights believe that they are they only people with the right to use and define the term "marriage"?
|